Interesting article about BSD VS Linux

Post by **duffman91** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:01 pm

http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfras ... 6theo.html

This is a common discussion at my office given the nature of our work. However, this article sheds some new light on an old topic.

To the ones that use some linux/unix/BSD daily, what do you think?

Post by **saturn** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:14 pm

that's interesting. I knew it years ago when I read that my ISP (which has been awarded best ISP in Holland for several times) used FreeBSD for their servers instead of the upcoming Linux.

Didn't know that Linux was becoming such a 'mess of hacks' though.

I use OS X daily, but I'm glad that I don't notice anything of the BSD legacy running underneath. Too nerdish for me.

Post by **Timbo** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:40 pm

Theo de Raadt is... well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt

De Raadt is noted for his uncompromising and confrontational manner, which has contributed to several disputes within the free software community, most notably his dispute with the NetBSD core team which led to the formation of OpenBSD. Because of this he has become notorious for stating his opinions regardless of what anyone else might think, or of any consequences.

Never take him seriously, even if he does himself.

Post by **^misantropia^** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:43 pm

From TFA:

Simon Lok wrote:"You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire?"

I know that comment. It's just a note-to-self asking if it'd be better to move the code into its own module.

Simon Lok wrote:"Right then I knew it was time to switch."

Right then I knew I will never ever hire Lok Technologies. Retard.

EDIT: regarding Forbes: keen readers will note that nowhere in the article de Raadt actually says that "Linux is for losers". I won't post my feelings about Forbes here, mostly because they're unprintable.

Post by **Postal** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:56 pm

I like Linux. It's worked well for me ever since I installed it a while back, and there have been no problems getting things to work for me.
Only complaint I have with it, is that when people release software, it's always the uncomiled .tgz's. Perhaps they could put up a .deb or .rpm alongside?

Post by **l0g1c** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:24 pm

Read this on /. the other day.

Meh, from everything I've read, the *BSD operating systems are top-notch, and even though Theo is notorious for his confrontational nature, a lot of the tmes he is right.

It really comes down to what operating system works best for you. I'm not windows hater, I'm not a mac hater (even though they are the most fun to make fun of, what with their candy-colored cases and fruity icons). Linux works for me because it's well-supported, slim, stable, and very customizable.

Windows make good workstations and good gaming PC's, *BSD make good firewalls, Mac's make good media editing, and for me, linux makes a great development OS as well as a Desktop OS.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:19 am

Timbo wrote:Theo de Raadt is... well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt

De Raadt is noted for his uncompromising and confrontational manner, which has contributed to several disputes within the free software community, most notably his dispute with the NetBSD core team which led to the formation of OpenBSD. Because of this he has become notorious for stating his opinions regardless of what anyone else might think, or of any consequences.
Never take him seriously, even if he does himself.

Don't know anything about the man, but the characteristics listed in your quote would make me take him more seriously than not, if anything.

There is nothing to indicate in that quote that his ideas aren't intelligent, or that he is a dishonest man.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:23 am

an interview with him, and a very detailed perspective on his person:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/ ... 76287.html

Keep It Real · Post by **Keep It Real** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:28 am

why do computer nerds always try to put everything versus something else?

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:38 am

Timbo wrote:Never take him seriously, even if he does himself.

Ok I just read the article, and found it to be very insightful. Is there anything in particular that you have issue with? Any factual errors, or inconsistencies, or poor inferences?

The message I get is that this man is a genius with probably not the best social graces, or cannot accomplish what he wants in a diplomatic manner.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:03 am

Keep It Real wrote:why do computer nerds always try to put everything versus something else?

it's the "bandwagon effect" - as grossly seen in Testo threads.

Post by **glossy** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:19 am

saturn wrote:Didn't know that Linux was becoming such a 'mess of hacks' though.

any software that is maintained by large groups of people without very strict guidelines and without proper management will begin to fall apart in a "mess of hacks" -- just look at PHP

Post by **l0g1c** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:30 am

glossy wrote:
saturn wrote:Didn't know that Linux was becoming such a 'mess of hacks' though.
any software that is maintained by large groups of people without very strict guidelines and without proper management will begin to fall apart in a "mess of hacks" -- just look at PHP

"Mess of hacks" is intentionally misleading and is far from what actually happens. The only thing this particular statement could apply to is kernel patches and those are pared down and cleaned up by the kernel "maintainers." If De Raadt is actually trying to apply this to the programs, it's tantamount to saying that Microsoft should be responsible for the integrity of every program written for Windows.

De Raadt has plenty to be proud of, he should be touting that instead of trying to slander the competition (if you could even call it competition). In the end, he's just trying to get support for his team and his hard work. I can't fault him for that.

Post by **^misantropia^** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:54 pm

Some drivers are a bit hackish, mostly to get around flaky hardware[1]. The core of the kernel (mm, fs, sched, etc) consists of nice and clean code.

[1] Just grep for shit or fuck in drivers/

Post by **Timbo** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:17 pm

[xeno]Julios wrote:
Timbo wrote:Never take him seriously, even if he does himself.
Ok I just read the article, and found it to be very insightful. Is there anything in particular that you have issue with? Any factual errors, or inconsistencies, or poor inferences?

The message I get is that this man is a genius with probably not the best social graces, or cannot accomplish what he wants in a diplomatic manner.

He seems preoccupied with criticising others instead of promoting his own work. It's my impression that he craves the publicity that something like Linux gets and sees the best of way of attaining this as debunking it.

Have a read of http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/213 ... id=8&tid=2. Specifically:

NF: The BSDs are still considered by some to be more technically correct than the Linux kernel. Linus Torvalds has said in the past that it's not all about technology. Do you think the BSD project you work on is better technically for some or all uses than GNU/Linux (in general)?

Theo de Raadt: I don't know. I have never run Linux.

How can he be so convinced of Linux's supposed critical flaws if he has never actually used it?

He may even be right. I'm not a kernel hacker. But he doesn't have to be such an asshat about it. At the end of the day though, regardless of the relative technical merits of various kernels/operating systems (it's never very clear what he refers to tbh), in practical terms OpenBSD isn't too far up there. Sure, if you absolutely must have security at any cost it's a good choice, but otherwise...

I'm not saying he's not an intelligent human being, just that most of the time his opinions shouldn't be taken purely at face value.

Here is what the NetBSD folk think of him:

Over the past year and a half, we have received a considerable number of complaints about the fact that you seem to harass and abuse both users and developers of NetBSD. At various times, some of us have suggested (with varying levels of severity) that you cease this behaviour, but this has been ineffective. Indeed, you have given us scant reason to believe that your behaviour is ever going to change for the better.

Your abusive actions have seriously impaired the success of the NetBSD project in several ways. Your actions have driven away developers or potential developers, and have alienated many users. They have also squandered much of the good will that various people have directed at the project.

Finally, it is clear that for the project to be a success, we must promote a positive environment for both users and developers. If we continue to allow you, an official representative of the NetBSD project, to behave in this manner, we create the perception that we approve of your behaviour. That perception is damaging to the project and cannot be allowed to persist.

Because of these things, we believe that it would be in the best interest of the NetBSD project if you were to resign all official association with the project. We request that you resign from the NetBSD core team, resign as the maintainer of the NetBSD SPARC port, and post a message to the "netbsd-users", "current-users", and "port-sparc" mailing lists announcing your resignation. If you choose not to post such an announcement within one day (by 9:00AM, 12/21/94), we will be forced to inform the public about your removal from the organization ourselves.

We regret having to do this, because you have done a significant amount of very good work for the project. In spite of that, we can no longer condone your behaviour. We wish for this parting to be as painless as possible; we have disabled your accounts on the NetBSD development machines and have removed you from the "core" and "port-masters" mailing lists, but have left your subscriptions to other NetBSD mailing lists untouched. We have no objection to your further participation in NetBSD, as long as you participate in a mature manner and make clear the fact that you no longer officially represent the NetBSD Project.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:51 pm

thx for reply.

Post by **Denz** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:35 pm

All I know is my last server was running Linux, it crashed all the time. I don't know if it was because it has a massive load on it 24/7 or what. When I switched servers using BSD, it no longer crashes.

hummm....

Post by **Timbo** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:29 pm

Interesting performance comparison: http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/

Post by **^misantropia^** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:46 pm

Good read, thanks. I wonder how OpenSolaris and the Hurd would perform. And current releases of the OSs tested, of course

Post by **Dr_Watson** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:25 am

Denz wrote:All I know is my last server was running Linux, it crashed all the time. I don't know if it was because it has a massive load on it 24/7 or what. When I switched servers using BSD, it no longer crashes.

hummm....

thats about my experience also.
got tired of fucking around with linux... installed openBSD, never had a problem with it in.... wow, about 4 years now... where does the time go.

Post by **duffman91** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:00 am

Keep It Real wrote:why do computer nerds always try to put everything versus something else?

Two competing products are used for similar jobs. I see nothing wrong with comparing them. Comparing OSX to Windows would be stupid however.

The BSD vs Linux argument is one that we have to tackle at work everyday. Some of our servers have to run one or the other for certain tasks. In the goal of security and stability in an enterprise/private sector, this issue comes up quite frequently between server admins. I asked to get opinions from the people that know.

To clarify further, we recently needed a server to run the Oracle client. Non Unix based solutions were not an option. We tend to favor FreeBSD servers in my office. However, the documentation and performance of Oracle on FreeBSD is nothing compared to Linux. We have yet to decide if a full switch to Linux is needed. The main problem is that there are 2 FreeBSD server admins and 1 Linux server admins. I separate the two because they all refuse and would prefer to not have to switch. We have actually still not decided due to various arguments like the ones posted on the link.

Due to the value of the information being put on these servers(Social Security numbers, money accounts, Visa types etc), it is very importang that we keep this info secure at all costs or face severe penalties. (A drawback of working for an education institution).

My comparison is far from "nerdish".

Post by **^misantropia^** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:36 pm

I've worked with both Linux and FreeBSD and IMHO they compare equally well these days[1], they're both mature, stable and fast. The main advantages Linux has over FreeBSD are:

a) Support for nearly every piece of hardware ever produced, and:
b) Tons of distros to choose from (which is also a drawback as it can be a royal pain to choose the right one for the job).

Try SELinux if the focal point is security. Slackware might be a good choice to ease the transition for your FreeBSD administrators: it has a more 'BSD-ish' look & feel to it than the average distro.

[1] Disclaimer: I use them mostly as gateways, routers, firewalls, mail servers or Squid farms.

Post by **saturn** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:28 pm

Interesting replies and reads......though I never really cared about this nerd stuff.

Guess I'm a nerd deep inside

Post by **rgoer** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:34 pm

netcraft confirms it